Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: Proving Einstein Right

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545

    Proving Einstein Right

    Proving Einstein Right
    Shawhan is part of a large team of researchers who operate LIGO, a set of two giant, L-shaped experiments in Louisiana marshland and Washington state forestland. The facilities each feature two 2.5-mile-long steel tubes built in perfectly straight lines that are designed to detect one of the faintest and most rare signals in the universe — gravitational waves.

    According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, gravitational waves are sent out by any object that undergoes acceleration. The waves are so faint, however, that only those emanating from huge events — such as colliding neutron stars or two black holes smashing together — can be detected.

    Even waves from these events are so faint that by the time they reach Earth, they will be recorded by a difference of timing in the instruments amounting to just 0.0000000000000000000000001th of a second.

    "This is one of the hardest parts of his theory to prove because the waves we hope to see are just so incredibly weak," said Shawhan. "It's a tiny effect."

    So far, the crew of scientists has no direct evidence the waves are there. But a century ago Einstein proposed their existence, and so they're confident they'll prove him right. It's just a matter of when.

    An instrument at the joint of the two passageways sends light beams down each arm. The light travels down the tubes and hits mirrors at the near and far ends of each tunnel and then bounces back and forth 100 times.
    I did a BABB search, but I couldn't find anybody talking about this.

    What exactly is LIGO? Has it been around for a long time? 8)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416
    Have look at the LIGO website.

    EDIT: I knew there was a thread about LIGO somwhere on this board.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Have look at the LIGO website.

    EDIT: I knew there was a thread about LIGO somwhere on this board.
    That's a lot of website. I could get lost in there for hours. Thanks, papageno.

    EDIT: I just now saw that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    How'd you miss this post

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    Quote Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
    How'd you miss this post
    Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:36 pm

    I didn't search for LIGO.

    Beside, my subject is different from the LIGO thread. Nobody's talking about Einstein and proving him right.

    I am waiting to see what the LIGO thread is going to do with all the abandoned equipment, though. :-?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    It was 100 years ago when an obscure 26-year-old office worker in a Swiss patent office submitted five papers that would radically change the way people think about the universe.

    In fact, Albert Einstein's ideas, devised entirely from thought, were so advanced that scientists are still trying to prove some of them.

    To find evidence for the brilliant physicist's ideas, researchers are using the latest in technology and a century of research — neither of which Einstein had when he devised such profound concepts as the General Theory of Relativity.

    "It's amazing Einstein came up with his theories just by thinking about the situation," said Peter Shawhan, a staff scientist at the California Institute of Technology.
    See.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Just to be careful, Einstein's general theory of relativity was not included in any of the five papers that were published 100 years ago--general relativity did not appear until 1915/1916, although he published some attempts in the few years before, but none as early as 1905. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) is an attempt to observe gravity waves, which is a consequence of that theory. More or less.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    About Einstein
    Ask someone who the most famous physicist is and the answer will most probably be “Albert Einstein.” In 1905, Einstein wrote three papers (on light quanta, Brownian motion and the special theory of relativity), which would change the way we looked at physics. Given his iconic status in modern physics, the U.S. decided on “Einstein in the 21st Century” as its theme for the World Year of Physics 2005—the hundredth anniversary of those papers. While looking forward to physics in the 21st century, we also want to honor Einstein, the man.
    This is from a link off of the LIGO website.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247
    The LIGO website says it right (special, not general relativity), the ABC story says it wrong (am I surprised? :roll: ) .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,494
    Hey! Someone other than CNN messed up. Way to go ABC! You ventured outside of politics and celebrities doing things that people JUST LIKE ME *girlish scream* do, and got it wrong. Welcome to the realm of the big boys.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    The LIGO website says it right (special, not general relativity), the ABC story says it wrong (am I surprised? :roll: ) .
    The ABC story doesn't say that the general theory of relativity was published in 1905, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    Hey! Someone other than CNN messed up. Way to go ABC! You ventured outside of politics and celebrities doing things that people JUST LIKE ME *girlish scream* do, and got it wrong. Welcome to the realm of the big boys.
    What did they get wrong?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    Quote Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    The LIGO website says it right (special, not general relativity), the ABC story says it wrong (am I surprised? :roll: ) .
    The ABC story doesn't say that the general theory of relativity was published in 1905, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ut
    Hey! Someone other than CNN messed up. Way to go ABC! You ventured outside of politics and celebrities doing things that people JUST LIKE ME *girlish scream* do, and got it wrong. Welcome to the realm of the big boys.
    What did they get wrong?
    You guys made me look, too! 8-[

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    981
    Heh. Suckers.

    *runs away, Zoidbergesquely*

  14. #14
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristophe
    Heh. Suckers.

    *runs away, Zoidbergesquely*

    8:13 LIGO ?
    http://www.google.com
    :15 http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
    :16 http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/docs/acronyms.html
    :16.? GEO British-German Cooperation for Gravity Wave Experiment
    I was looking for Gal Year {Gy}? and Giggle Gi


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    Quote Originally Posted by HUb'
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristophe
    Heh. Suckers.

    *runs away, Zoidbergesquely*

    8:13 LIGO ?
    http://www.google.com
    :15 http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
    :16 http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/docs/acronyms.html
    :16.? GEO British-German Cooperation for Gravity Wave Experiment
    I was looking for Gal Year {Gy}? and Giggle Gi

    I was looking there, too, for some funny acronyms, though. 8-[

    The funniest one I could find was IP (Inverted Pendulum).

    This one must be lost in the translation VIRGO (Italian-French Laser Interferometer Collaboration). :-?

  16. #16
    Guest
    [quote="Candy"][quote="HUb'"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristophe
    Heh. Suckers.

    This one must be lost in the translation VIRGO (Italian-French Laser Interferometer Collaboration). :-?
    =D> the F looks Funny? :^o

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    I FLIC?

  18. #18
    Hi Candy

    There are a few of us who do not accept Einstein’s General Relativity as the best model to describe nature. So Einstein is not always right. (In my, opinion, as well as his own.).

    I have placed a series of arguments expressing General Relativity’s short falls previously on this board. (Go back one page on this board for posting).

    This is not to say that mathematically it can work, the application of Tensor analysis to space-time is so neat that it is hard not to fall in love with the model. Unfortunately the model is proving to result in complexity with additional fixes, such a cosmological constant, dark matter, and dark energy.

    One of the justifications for General Relativity is the precession of Mercury. I have posted a link to Santagata’s work that predicts the same precession without general relativity.
    http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...pers/gravi.pdf
    His model is also mathematically a much simpler and in my opinion, simpler is better. I am somewhat disappointed in the failure of anyone rising to the defense of General relativity and asserting that it is the correct model predicting the precession of the planets.

    John M. Kulick
    AKA snowflak

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,235
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    Hi Candy


    I have placed a series of arguments expressing General Relativity’s short falls previously on this board. (Go back one page on this board for posting).
    When you do Candy, make a note of Astronomy and others detailed refutations. (althought, not surprisingly, Snowflake rejects the refutations).

    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    This is not to say that mathematically it can work, the application of Tensor analysis to space-time is so neat that it is hard not to fall in love with the model. Unfortunately the model is proving to result in complexity with additional fixes, such a cosmological constant, dark matter, and dark energy.
    You're confusing GR with cosmological models again. Your example is like saying the Higgs boson hasn't been found yet, which causes problems with the standard model, so there must be something wrong with QFT.

    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    One of the justifications for General Relativity is the precession of Mercury. I have posted a link to Santagata’s work that predicts the same precession without general relativity.
    http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...pers/gravi.pdf
    His model is also mathematically a much simpler and in my opinion, simpler is better.
    Yeah, one (my bold). How does Santagata's work fit with the rest of GR's tests? Predicts the same precession? Where has Santagata's work on the inspiral of binary neutron stars. GR predicts that too.[/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    I am somewhat disappointed in the failure of anyone rising to the defense of General relativity and asserting that it is the correct model predicting the precession of the planets.
    Are you claiming it doesn't?

    I'd also have to question your use of Santagata's work as a refutation of GR, as it would also refute your own work.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    One of the justifications for General Relativity is the precession of Mercury. I have posted a link to Santagata’s work that predicts the same precession without general relativity.
    http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/L...pers/gravi.pdf
    His model is also mathematically a much simpler and in my opinion, simpler is better. I am somewhat disappointed in the failure of anyone rising to the defense of General relativity and asserting that it is the correct model predicting the precession of the planets.
    I am disappointed that you would place such faith in the online non-peer-reviewed Journal of Theoretics. They published a paper uncritically a while ago that argued that there was no precession of the equinoxes--and used a cocked-up backyard appartus to "prove" it. (Worse, their results gradually improved over time, so that the latest results actually supported precession, but they insisted on using the old results.)

    Santagata's paper is fairly long, so I simplified my approach to it, and tried to apply my rule of thumb: "whenever a step in a proof is obvious, that's where to look for an error." Luckily, an instance occurs early, on page 2, in conjunction with the first equation, Kepler's third law. He says of his formula that the meaning of the symbols is evident. So, I looked into it.

    I looked up Kepler's law in Stacey's Physics of the Earth, and I found T^2 = (4*pi^2) * a^3/(G*M). The a represents the semimajor axis. This is very similar to Santagata’s expression, except Santagata uses d, which is the factor (1+m/M) times a. However, that means that Santagata's expression differs from Stacey's by (1+m/M)^2 on the left hand side.

    If I were a betting man, I'd bet Santagata went off track there.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    The LIGO website says it right (special, not general relativity), the ABC story says it wrong (am I surprised? :roll: ) .
    The ABC story doesn't say that the general theory of relativity was published in 1905, though.
    It strongly implies it:
    It was 100 years ago when an obscure 26-year-old office worker in a Swiss patent office submitted five papers that would radically change the way people think about the universe.

    In fact, Albert Einstein's ideas [including GR? - it doesn't say, but it continues...].... were so advanced that scientists are still trying to prove some of them [LIGO: GR?].
    This strongly implies that GR was one of those 5 papers.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,545
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    Hi John M. Kulick
    AKA snowflak
    You overestimate my intelligence. I will never get through these 26 pages without an interpreter. 8-[

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    Quote Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    The LIGO website says it right (special, not general relativity), the ABC story says it wrong (am I surprised? :roll: ) .
    The ABC story doesn't say that the general theory of relativity was published in 1905, though.
    It strongly implies it:
    It was 100 years ago when an obscure 26-year-old office worker in a Swiss patent office submitted five papers that would radically change the way people think about the universe.

    In fact, Albert Einstein's ideas [including GR? - it doesn't say, but it continues...].... were so advanced that scientists are still trying to prove some of them [LIGO: GR?].
    This strongly implies that GR was one of those 5 papers.
    Strongly? No. As near as I can tell, the statements are correct--so, I don't see how it can strongly imply something that is incorrect. Rather than "imply," I would say it could be misread.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247
    My, aren't we argumentative today? Yeah, I'm bored too (slow day at work).

    This sentence is more direct:
    So far, the crew of scientists has no direct evidence the waves are there. But a century ago Einstein proposed their existence, and so they're confident they'll prove him right.
    Einstein did not propose gravity waves existed 100 years ago. I stand by my previous assessment, and in any case, it isn't the only thing I find misleading about the article. In fact, I have a problem with the title, subtitle, and the entire opening section and a number of other sentences. Its just plain poorly written. Being an engineer and not a journalist, I'm a real stickler for precision in writing - it avoids just this sort of confusion. Though obviously we can't know for sure one way or another, it is my opinion that its probably poorly written because the author doesn't know what she's talking about.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Moi?

    OK, I accept that you have higher standards when it comes to writing.

  26. #26
    HI A Thousand Pardons

    Thank you for the reply.

    You stated the following.

    "I am disappointed that you would place such faith in the online non-peer-reviewed Journal of Theoretics."

    I am sorry that I disappointed you, but it is encouraging that you feel I should maintain a high standard.

    Unfortunately it is a reality that peer reviewed papers that are critical of general relativity are very difficult to have published. I know of well-respected physicists who have been fired for not adhering to convention for fear that the institution would have a poor reputation. As a consequence of this “pruning”, a peer-reviewed article only tends to reinforce the existing beliefs. Dogma, even in scientific thought, reigns now as well as during Galileo’s time. If the solution is outside the box, you have to look outside the box.

    You are right that caution should be exercised in supporting a paper. I spent a good hour reviewing the paper and found it to be sound. The mathematics and logic is persuasive. The only thing I did not do was check the math, but based upon the thoroughness of the analysis, such a step seemed unjustified. So if I were offered the chance to “peer” review the paper, I almost certainly would approve it. (I would spend more a few more hours checking it and I would check some of the math, just to be safe. As it stands now, I am 90 percent confident in its accuracy and am willing to defend it. )

    You then stated,

    " Luckily, an instance occurs early, on page 2, in conjunction with the first equation, Kepler's third law. He says of his formula that the meaning of the symbols is evident. So, I looked into it.

    I looked up Kepler's law in Stacey's Physics of the Earth, and I found T^2 = (4*pi^2) * a^3/(G*M). The a represents the semimajor axis. This is very similar to Santagata’s expression, except Santagata uses d, which is the factor (1+m/M) times a. However, that means that Santagata's expression differs from Stacey's by (1+m/M)^2 on the left hand side. “


    Your citing the difference between Stacey’s formulation of Kepler’s laws and that of Santagata is absolutely right. However, this does not make Santagata wrong. You have picked up on the core concept of Mr Santagata, which is that orbiting bodies are going to rotate around their center of mass. Mainstream Astronomy, including General Relativity, as applied to orbiting mechanics, does not consider the center of mass of the solar system. Stacy’s formulation is based upon all the planets moving around the sun, Santagata’s is based upon the planets rotating around the center of mass of the planets. While the sun is much more massive than the rest of the planets combined, there is an offset to the center of mass of the system and the center of mass of the sun. It is this offset that results in the precession of the planets. (He has also extended his analysis to explain the precession of the equinoxes).

    Not considering the center of mass of a system for gravitational orbits is inconsistent in relation to mainstream physicists description of Atomic physics. The probabilistically defined orbital locations requires the consideration of the centers of mass within the atom, even though the mass of the nucleus is much more than that of the electron(s).

    In comparing one theory to another, the first step is to see if theory conforms to observation. If there are two theories that conform to observation, then I choose the simpler of the two. Heck, if we didn’t do that, we would still be predicting orbital locations using offsets and epicycles.

    Also, there has to be something more fundamental involved here. General relativity and Santagata’s “correction” to Newtonian relationships both result in almost identical answers. I am beginning to think that the difference is the frame of reference used. Santagata has an “absolute” frame of reference, relativity has a local frame of reference. Either way, the predictions locally are the same.

    John M. Kulick
    AKA snowflake

  27. #27
    Hi Tensor.
    Your critiques are good.

    Were you not intrigued by the accuracy of Santagata’s work in predicting the precession of the planets? Were you not intrigued by the simplicity of it?

    Granted there are applications not covered in Santagata’s work. Your example of the in-spiraling of binary neutron stars is correct, but this is a different issue. There is also the deflection of light due to gravity at two times the expected defection based upon Newtonian physics, but again that is another issue. I can use general relativity to conform to these observations, and I can propose other models that are just as accurate. I also believe that it is possible for an alternative model to be consistent, just as General Relativity is; this hypothetical model will result in a unified field theory.

    You are also correct in stating that Santagata’s work, by giving General Relativity a shove, tends to disprove my work. My model is dependant upon space and time conforming to geometric relationships. The same theoretical foundation for general relativity is required for my model. Truthfully, I have not found the reason for the difference, but I think it is a result of the frame of reference used. Santagata uses the “framework of the stars” whereas general relativity uses a local frame of reference. (Actually, it might be more accurate to say that general relativity is independent of frames of reference, but it’s relationships are locally determined). If this is the case, then Santagata’s work may improve the validity of my model.

    John M. Kulick
    AKA snowflake

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,416
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    Granted there are applications not covered in Santagata’s work. Your example of the in-spiraling of binary neutron stars is correct, but this is a different issue. There is also the deflection of light due to gravity at two times the expected defection based upon Newtonian physics, but again that is another issue. I can use general relativity to conform to these observations, and I can propose other models that are just as accurate. I also believe that it is possible for an alternative model to be consistent, just as General Relativity is; this hypothetical model will result in a unified field theory.
    Does this mean that General Relativity is covering situations that are not covered by Santagata's work?
    Do you prefer using one theory to explain a wide range of phenomena, or a set of models that might not overlap?

    Classical Mechanics and classical Electrodynamics are not entirely consistent with each other, although they work well within each field. Special Relativity unified them into one theory. And General Relativity brought in gravity.
    What value have alternative models, if they cannot do the same?

    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    Santagata has an “absolute” frame of reference, relativity has a local frame of reference. Either way, the predictions locally are the same.
    How is this "absolute" frame justified?
    If the predictions are the same, and Santagata's theory does not cover all the phenomena GR can cover, what value has that theory?

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    [Snip!]I know of well-respected physicists who have been fired for not adhering to convention for fear that the institution would have a poor reputation.[Snip!]
    Would you care to name a few of these "well-respected physicists"?

    Also, if any of you are well-respected physicists that have been fired for skepticism and/or outright disagreement with relativity, please stand up and say so!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    Quote Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
    I am sorry that I disappointed you, but it is encouraging that you feel I should maintain a high standard.
    I was just responding to your own disappointment, we all make mistakes. See below.
    Your citing the difference between Stacey’s formulation of Kepler’s laws and that of Santagata is absolutely right.
    No, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I tried to derive the rule myself, and worked through both Santagata's and Stacey's and found my error--actually, Stacey uses a different value of M that accounts for the other factor.
    However, this does not make Santagata wrong. You have picked up on the core concept of Mr Santagata, which is that orbiting bodies are going to rotate around their center of mass. Mainstream Astronomy, including General Relativity, as applied to orbiting mechanics, does not consider the center of mass of the solar system.
    No, that is absolutely wrong. Mainstream astronomy does take into account the other bodies in the system. I'll spend some more time with Santagata, and see if I can find out where the problem is.
    Stacy’s formulation is based upon all the planets moving around the sun, Santagata’s is based upon the planets rotating around the center of mass of the planets.
    A satellite that orbits the Earth does not orbit the center of mass of the Earth/moon system, obviously. But the effect of the moon and the Earth are both taken into account. Similarly for the Sun and Earth and other planets. As I said, I'll spend some more time with it.

Similar Threads

  1. What to do: Proving Negatives?
    By KingNor in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-03, 09:39 PM
  2. Proving that dinosaurs existed when they did?
    By Delphi in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-02, 08:23 AM
  3. DeJa Vu proving Precog?
    By electromagneticpulse in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 2004-Oct-03, 11:24 PM
  4. Proving movement
    By ganador in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-13, 07:18 AM
  5. Filtered pics proving no PX
    By Greenhalgh in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-May-16, 12:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •